Twitter241 MCP Server

get_highlights

Retrieve a user's highlighted tweets by ID, with options to set count and cursor for pagination.

Instructions

Get user highlights by ID

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "user": "<user>",
      "count": "<count>"
    },
    "name": "get_highlights"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`user`	Yes	Example value: 877807935493033984
`count`	Yes	Example value: 20
`cursor`	No	Example value:

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but discloses no behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, authentication, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise phrase with no fluff. While not over-long, it lacks additional structure or context, which is a slight limitation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what 'highlights' are and what response to expect. It does neither, leaving an incomplete understanding for the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds minor clarity by suggesting the user parameter is an ID ('by ID'), but it does not explain the count or cursor parameters beyond their examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (user highlights) with a scope (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_user_tweets by specifying 'highlights', though it doesn't elaborate on what highlights are.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling get_user_* tools, an agent could confuse highlights with other user data. The description gives no exclusions or alternative tool references.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server